Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Vicky Ford

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Well, now. From the outset the Opposition have made it clear that we believe this Bill to be unnecessary, unrealistic and undesirable, and everything that has happened in the other place since we last saw it here has only reaffirmed what was painfully obvious. This is an inherently flawed piece of legislation, from a fatally wounded Government unable to deal in reality.

I reiterate what I said on Second Reading: this Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit. We have left the European Union. That is a fact. This is about the good governance of the UK, and whether it is Parliament or Government that should have the power to control significant changes to the law. On the Opposition Benches, we recognise that there are undoubtedly areas where we as a country will choose to take a different regulatory approach now that we are no longer pooling some of those decisions across the other member states of the European Union. However, where we choose to do that, the correct approach is to bring to this place a set of positive proposals and have them accepted or rejected in the usual fashion. Not only is that the better approach, but it is the Government’s approach to, for instance, financial regulation in the form of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which the Labour party broadly supported. The Solicitor General gave additional examples of that approach in his opening remarks. Indeed, if any Member has a positive agenda to promote, let them bring that positive set of proposals to this place.

What the Government suggested initially was nothing short of legislative vandalism, taking a machete to the law in a way that risked our hard-won rights, when what was needed was a scalpel. For the Government to try to remove via a sunset clause vast swathes of law, which they themselves could not even adequately list or quantify, was always ridiculous. To create so much uncertainty—especially after the fiasco of the mini-Budget, when the Conservatives crashed the British economy—was bad enough, but also risking so many core rights and protections, in the form of employment law, the environment and consumer rights, was fundamentally unworkable. Britain’s businesses, trade unions, civic society and campaigners united to oppose such a reckless and unnecessary approach, and I, for one, commend them for their work.

As all colleagues are now aware, the Government have finally reckoned with reality. Today, we are presented with the inevitable decision by the Secretary of State to completely abandon the Government’s initial approach and accept how wrong they were. It appears to be a decision so humiliating that the Secretary of State is not prepared to face the Chamber. The Government’s amendment, through which they seek to perform a U-turn so swift that it is more of more of a handbrake turn, will change the Bill fundamentally. I thought that the Solicitor General put a very brave face on it, but people will rightly ask why, if his statements are correct, this was not the Government’s approach to begin with.

The change to the sunset clause is not the limit of the good work done in the House of Lords. In the other place, they have sought to protect the role of Parliament and of our constituents in deciding our future trajectory. They have correctly made it clear that no one voted to take back control only for decisions to be made in the back rooms of Whitehall. Lords amendment 1, which was tabled by Lord Hope of Craighead and the Conservative peers Lord Hamilton and Lord Hodgson, would ensure that a joint committee goes through the laws that the Government are proposing to drop, with any objections triggering a vote in Parliament. I urge all colleagues who wish for their constituents’ voice to be strengthened in this process to support the amendment.

Lords amendment 6 would ensure that many of the rights secured by EU case law

decisions cannot be reversed without Parliament’s say so. Crucially, the amendment also respects the role that the devolved Administrations should be playing in that process, allowing them to have the final decision on revoking any rights, powers or liabilities, where relevant.

British consumers and farmers rightly want our world-class standards to be strengthened, not weakened, as a result of leaving the EU. We will therefore support Lords amendment 15 to stop a regression on food and environmental regulations. I heard the Minister’s defence of the Government’s position in pushing back on the amendment, but, in light of the widespread concern of many constituents about, for instance, the huge increase in sewage in UK waterways under the Conservative Government, it is particularly important to support it.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Many of my constituents are also concerned about the rise in food prices. Does he agree that we need to be careful that our legislation does not push food prices up unnecessarily, and that, although we need to ensure that food standards are maintained, we should not add extra bureaucracy, because that comes out of our constituents’ pockets when they pay at the supermarket?

Financial Services

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Vicky Ford

Thursday 26th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Vicky Ford]

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said she is extremely concerned about how soon we can give certainty in the EU negotiations. There are two sides to giving certainty. The Government’s statements—especially the detailed HSBC Canary Wharf speech—contain a huge amount of detail about the need for ongoing co-operation. The EU negotiators have also talked about wanting to have super-equivalence, and that is helpful, but we have not seen the same level of detail. It needs to come from both sides.

In my experience of many years of EU negotiations, having a seat at the table was sometimes helpful—that will be missed—but there were other times when it was a challenge. The financial services industry is much more important to our economy than it is to that of many other countries, although it does support them, but that left us with different exposures. That is why we did not want to have an identical approach to solve certain issues; the approach of maximum harmonisation—one size fits all—that we increasingly see across the single market is very challenging.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Johnathan Reynolds) spoke about needing to confirm whether we are going to align. To me, that sometimes means having a completely identical approach, which can be a challenge. One thing I learned from my time in European politics is that there are times when the EU recognises equivalence, but without that being identical. I particularly look at the way in which we treated the bank sector. When we introduced our bank levy, the rest of Europe, particularly within the eurozone, had the funded deposit guarantee system. There were two different ways to solve the same issue to make sure that funds were set aside in case there was failure, but they are both built into the legislation.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My point was not around the specifics of regulations; it is a question of economic models and the partnership we seek with the European Union. We have to try to move the negotiations forward. We have to give them an unequivocal sign of what our future intentions are, or we simply will not get the progress that we need. We are already way behind where we need to be. The point around equivalence is simply this: yes, that model will work, but it must have legal certainty. Without that certainty we will have the migration of business.

[Vicky Ford]

On legal certainty, I completely agree. It is only five or six stops on the Jubilee line to get to Canary Wharf, so I took the bother to go and listen to every single word that was said in that speech. I wish more Members from this House had bothered to go and listen to it and to speak to the industry players who were there afterwards, because it went into detail and addressed very important things—especially how one was going to co-operate with the colleges of supervisors that have been set up on a bank-by-bank basis. Speaking to the individuals who are responsible for the regulatory functions within their own institutions and getting that level of detail was welcome. It is not fair to criticise only the British side of the negotiations for not giving enough detail—the British side has given significant detail.

Maintaining ongoing co-operation, dialogue and exchange of information is key in building regulatory trust. Let us not forget that £45 billion of taxpayers’ money had to be spent bailing out RBS; we had to bail out branches of not just the British bank but the Dutch and Irish bank because there was no legal mechanism for a cross-border reorganisation of a bank in crisis. That has been resolved, and part of the way it has been resolved is by having that ongoing dialogue that brings together the British regulators with the Dutch and the Irish. The very clear message from the Chancellor that he wanted to continue to be part of that should be welcomed. It is not as simple as saying we need alignment to give legal certainty. From the contributions that I had from organisations prior to this debate, the calls are for more legal certainty to be given from the other side of the negotiation table.

I thank Members for the many suggestions on how to deal with the issue of branch closures. There are clearly different problems in different parts of the country. As I said, my part of the country is an urban area—a city—and because we are seeing a change towards digital banking, there is less demand for physical banking, so we need to manage that transition.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who made fantastic points so eloquently about the future of financial services, reminding us that we need to look forward to what sorts of services we want come 2028 and beyond. The actions that we take are absolutely key. Unlocking some of the benefits of the digital age, but also making sure there is perhaps some friction in the system so that we can put protections in for consumers, is definitely one of the actions I want to continue focusing on after this debate. I think that will help to protect people from cyber-attacks on their bank accounts.

It is absolutely vital that we continue to champion these industries, to support the people who work in them and to work with other parts of the world. I completely welcome the comments that the Minister made about setting up the regulatory working group with the United States and other parts of the world, and I wish him great success. Let us pick up the specific issues that have been addressed by Members here to make sure that we make targeted interventions where we can to help the industry, the people who work in it and the very many of our constituents who are, at the end of the day, consumers of these services and rely on them. Thank you, Sir David, for this wonderful afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the financial services and the impact on the UK economy.